English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Rarely have Southern historians devoted as much attention to a simple question of torts as they have in the instance of fence laws: would owners livestock be held liable for damages to other people's crops if they did not fence in their animals (referred to as the "stock law"), or did crop owners have to fence out other people's cattle and swine (known as the "fence law")? In most of the sparsely settled pre-Civil War South, the open-range, or fence-law, position prevailed. Post-Civil War state legislation allowed voters in counties or subcounty districts to adopt laws that shifted rights to crop growers and town dwellers and away from owners of livestock, which effectively closed the range.

Common Sense or Commonwealth? The Fence Law and Institutional Change in the Postbellum South